Forum of appeal

2025 SCMR 303 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 57(5)Trans-provincial establishmentForum of appealNational Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), jurisdiction ofExclusion of jurisdiction of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal

Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ("IRA") is applicable only to the employees and entrepreneurs of trans-provincial establishments, while after the 18th Constitutional Amendment, the provinces have also promulgated their local labour laws, including those relating to industrial relations, and in case of any grievance, the aggrieved person may approach the Labour Courts as per the prescribed procedure

If dissatisfied with an order of a Labour Court, they may file an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, but not to the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC)

In the present case, since the petitioner was a trans-provincial establishment, the matters were previously being handled by the Labour Court before the promulgation of the IRA

However, pending adjudication of the appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, a special industrial relations law was promulgated for trans-provincial establishments whereby a procedural change was made in the choice of forum of appeal, applicable not to new cases but to those pending in Labour Courts or the Labour Appellate Tribunal for the establishments/organizations included and covered in the definition of trans-provincial establishments in the IRA

Consequently, from the effective date, the jurisdiction of Provincial Labour Courts and the Labour Appellate Tribunal for the employees of trans-provincial establishment stood excluded for all intents and purposes

Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal of the petitioner on 13.03.2013, when the IRA was very much in the field, having come into force on 14.3.2012

Therefore, taking into consideration Subsection (5) of Section 57 of the IRA, no Labour Court or Labour Appellant Tribunal could have taken the cognizance in respect of any matter which was well within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NIRC

Industrial Relations Act has an overriding effect on all provincial labour laws

Despite these unambiguous and non-complex legal barricades, the Labour Tribunal, instead of acknowledging its lack of jurisdiction as an appellate forum in the cases of trans-provincial establishments, dismissed the appeal rather than returning the memo of appeal for presentation before the competent forum

Any order or decision passed without jurisdiction would be coram non judice and thus a nullity

If a mandatory condition for exercise of jurisdiction by a court is not fulfilled, then the entire proceeding which follows becomes illegal and suffers from want of jurisdiction

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; consequently, the order passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, both were set aside with the directions to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to return the original memo/ file of Labour Appeal to the duly authorized representative of the petitioner for its immediate institution and decision by the Full Bench of the NIRC on merits, and in accordance with law, after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2025 PTD 708 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 126-A, 129 (4) & 133(1)General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.6Forum of appealPecuniary jurisdictionContinuing operation of repealed lawPrinciple

Dispute was with regard to determination of forum of appeal regarding matters where value of assessment of tax or refund of tax did not exceed Rupees 20 million

Held: Principle of continuing operation of a repealed law can only be applied where Legislature does not give the amending Act retrospective effect

Where Legislature gives retrospective effect to provisions of amending Act by express words or necessary intendment, then principle enshrined in S.6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 does not apply and express intention of Legislature in new enactment has to be given effect

High Court declared that cases where value of tax or refund, as the case may be, was less than Rupees 20 million, appeal against order would lie to Commissioner Appeals, and in cases exceeding such amount, appeal would lie to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, if the order had been communicated to affected parties after the date of commencement of Finance Act, 2024

High Court further declared that appeals having assessment value of tax, or refund of tax, as the case may be, pending before Commissioner appeals on 31-12-2024, stood transferred to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue by operation of law and were supposed to be decided by the Tribunal; that appeals having value of Rupees 20 million or less and pending before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue on or before 31-12-2024 would continue to be decided by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue; that reference against order of Commissioner Appeals filed on communication of the order after commencement of Tax Law (Amendment) Act, 2024 would be entertainable by High Court and would be decided in accordance with amended law; that all cases pending before High Court or sent back to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue would be dealt in accordance with the declaration made by High Court

High Court directed the parties to approach Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue for seeking sending back of those tax references which had been filed before High Court after Tax Law (Amendment) Act, 2024 and were sent to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue for re-transfer to High Court in accordance with the declaration so made by High Court, and Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue would be at liberty to send back the cases, despite the earlier directions of High Court in those cases

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

2025 PCrLJ 654 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

JurisdictionForum of appeal

If a Court not possessed of jurisdiction to try a case wrongly assumes jurisdiction and exercises power not vested in it, appeal from its decision would lie in the same manner as an appeal would lie from a decision made with jurisdiction.

2023 MLD 362 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 18Forum of appealDeterminationExpression "value of the original suit"Scope

Forum of appeal is to be determined on the basis of original value of the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge is always to be derived from valuation mentioned in the plaint

Meaning ascribed to the expression "value of original suit" in S. 18(1) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, is confined to the valuation given in the plaint.

2023 MLD 362 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 18Forum of appealDeterminationScopeRespondent filed an application under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940Application was accepted by the Civil Judge

Appeal filed by appellant before the District Judge was returned on the ground that since the subject matter exceeded the pecuniary limits of the Court, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal

Validity

Respondent had not provided any valuation in its application but had claimed an amount to be outstanding against the appellant, which could only be said to be the disputed amount and could not be presumed to be the value of the subject matter

Appellant had rightly approached the District Judge by filing appeal

Impugned order was set aside and the District Judge was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

2017 YLR 179 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 18Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 11Partition Act (IV of 1893), S. 4Suit for possession through partitionForum of appealDetermi-nation ofPrinciplesForum of appeal was to be determined on the basis of original value of the suitPecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge was subject to valuation in the plaint

Appeal against the decree or order of Civil Judge would lie to the District Judge if the value of original suit in which such decree or order was made did not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/- and to the High Court in any other case

If defendant questioned the original value of the suit or Court disagreed with the determined jurisdiction value of the suit assessed by the plaintiff then the Trial Court could pass order fixing the value after framing issue and providing an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence

Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court had to be determined with reference to the valuation given in the plaint and could not be connected to the escalation in the price of the property during pendency of the suit

Valuation of the property for the purpose of jurisdiction would be same as mentioned in the plaint unless determined by the Trial Court after framing issue

Suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee was valued as Rs. 37.50/

Neither the defendant questioned nor the Trial Court had determined the original jurisdiction value of the suit by way of framing of issue

Valuation of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction in the matter of appeal would be the same as mentioned in the plaint

Petitioners had rightly availed remedy of appeal before the District Judge but order of return of memo of appeal had been passed which was not sustainable

Impugned order was set aside and appeal filed would be deemed to be pending before the Appellate Court

Appellate Court should decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of two months

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2017 YLR 835 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.17(4)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.413 & 414Dacoity with murder, haraabaCharge and sentence under Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979Forum of appeal

Accused persons were charged under S.17(4) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with Ss.413 & 414 Penal Code, 1860

Charge against accused having been framed under S.17(4) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, forum of appeal would be Federal Shariat Court and not the High Court

Appeals were transferred from High Court to the Federal Shariat Court accordingly.

2017 YLR 888 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 17(3) & 24Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265(k)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 347, 504, 506(2) & 34

Haraabah, wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation, common intention

Forum of appeal

Trial Court acquitted accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. from charges under Penal Code and Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979

Appeal to High Court

Competence

Second proviso of S.24 of the Ordinance provided that an offence punishable under S. 9 or S. 17 of the Ordinance, 1979, shall be tried by a court of session and an appeal from order of acquittal shall lie to the Federal Shariat Court as well as against the order of sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years

Word "order" in proviso (second) of S.24 of the Ordinance covered both order of conviction and that of acquittal

Appeal against acquittal filed in the High Court was not maintainable, therefore the same was returned to the appellant for its presentation to the competent forum.

2016 PLD 409 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 18(1)Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), PreambleCourt Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7Value of the suit as fixed in the plaint changed by the Trial CourtForum of appeal

Value of suit determined by the Trial Court shall finally and exclusively be taken into account in terms of S.18(1)(a)&(b) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 as "the value of the original suit" for purposes of determining forum of appeal and the value initially fixed by the plaintiff shall cease to exist.

2014 PLD 39 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 47, 4(5) & 25West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Ss. 14 & 5, SchedApplication for custody of minorForum of appealApplication filed under S.25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was accepted by Family CourtAppeal preferred before Additional District Judge was dismissed for want of jurisdictionValidity

While entertaining petition for custody of minor and other related matters under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, same was not to be dealt with in isolation rather the provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 were to be read co-jointly

Family Court constituted under the provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had exclusive jurisdiction in the matters enumerated in the Schedule attached to the said Act

Section 5 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 with the Schedule attached therein described the limits of jurisdiction vested with Family Court

Matters pertaining to custody of children and visitation rights of parents and guardianship would come in the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court

Section 4(5) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was not to be read in isolation rather to be read with S.25 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

While dealing with the matters contained in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Family Court had to follow the procedure prescribed in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Section 47 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 described the forum of appeal in the matters decided under the provisions of said Act as High Court

Any order passed by Family Court while entertaining an application for custody of minor would not amount to an order of District Court nor right of appeal would become available before High Court rather appeal had to be preferred under S.14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Appeal against order pertaining to matters covered by Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 should lie before District Court except where Family Court being presided over by District Judge or Additional District Judge or a person notified by the Government to be of such rank and status, and in such case appeal should lie to the High Court

If application for custody of minor was heard and decided by Family Judge not having status of District Judge, the appeal should lie to District Judge

Appellate Court was under misconception and had committed an error

Constitutional petition was accepted and order of Additional District Judge was set aside and Appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal on merit.

2014 PLC 190 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 48Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act (XVI of 2010), Ss.51 & 83General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Ss.6 & 24Constitution of Pakistan, Art.247(3)Provincially Administered Tribal AreasForum of appeal

Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 having been repealed, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 had been promulgated but had not been extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas as per requirement of Art.247(3) of the Constitution

In the absence of extension of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas the effect would be that the extension of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 had not been repealed and was still in the field there

Constitutional petition against the Judgment of Labour Court falling under Provincially Administered Tribal Areas was treated as appeal under S.48 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.

2013 CLC 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 18Pecuniary jurisdictionForum of appealDetermination

Matter of pecuniary jurisdiction was to be determined on the basis of value of suit as mentioned in the plaint and not on the basis of value fixed with reference to the disputed amount / value determined by the Trial Court.